Complainant Gagandeep Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the opposite parties to handover the New Sawaraj Tractor 855 of Model 2015 since he has purchased new Tractor of 2015 Model. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties alongwith litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased new Swaraj Tractor for earning his livelihood by way of self employment from the opposite party no.1 on 17.4.2015 for Rs.6,60,000/- including charges of R.C. and Insurance and out of the said amount he has paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the opposite party no.1 and remaining amount of Rs.3,10,000/- was got financed from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company. He has further pleaded that at the time of purchase the tractor the opposite party no.1 has not issued the original bill to him on the pretext that the said bill requires to them for the purchase of Registration Certificate of the Tractor in question. The opposite party has issued a Katcha receipt which was duly signed and sealed by the authorized signatory of the opposite party no.1 He has purchased the Tractor on 17.4.2015 and at that point of time it was asked by the opposite party no.1 that the tractor is of 2015 Model. But after few days of the purchase of the said Tractor when he got washed the said tractor then he came to know that the Model of the said tractor is not 2015 and otherwise something else, since the opposite party no.1 has made omission at the site where the model of the Tractor is mentioned in the Chassis of the Tractor. After three days, so purchase of the said Tractor, the lift of the Tractor became out of order. At that point of time, there was season of Wheat and he has purchased the said Tractor for affixing the Tractor with Reaper for earning handsome amount in the Wheat season but the opposite party no.1 has made rectification/removal of defect in the Lift of the Tractor after about 6 days. Even the lift of the Tractor is so far not doing actual and correct work and used to become out of order. He has number of times approached to the opposite party no.1 and requested them to remove the defect occurred in the Lift of the Tractor since the Tractor in question falls within the warranty period, but the opposite party no.1 always procrastinated the matter pending with one pretext or the other and ultimately on 3.9.2015, they have refused to rectify the defect in the tractor in question. He has next pleaded that opposite parties have done illegal act with him as the opposite party no.1 has sold the old and defective Tractor to him and due to this he has suffered huge loss as he is not able to plough his fields. He has obtained loan for the purchase of tractor but due to the illegal act of the opposite party he has not become able to give installments of the same. Due to the illegal act of the opposite parties he has suffered huge monetary loss and suffered mental and physical agony from the hands of the opposite parties. So there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written reply through its counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant in the present complaint is leveling false allegations that the old tractor has been sold. The new tractor has been sold. The opposite party no.1 received the said tractor through Invoice dated 4.4.2015 and sold it to the complainant. The complainant himself alleged that he purchased the said tractor 7.4.2015. Actually, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention. The amount of Rs.41,800/- was due towards the complainant. The complainant issued cheque dated 3.10.2015 having no.177157 to pay the said amount but the said cheque has been dishonoured two times. When the opposite party requested the complainant to make the payment and told him that they are going to initiate their legal rights, the complainant filed the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the Mahindra Finance Company, financed Rs.2,93,000/- vide D.O. No.5022665. The amount of RC and insurance paid by the opposite party and not by the complainant. The opposite party paid the amount of Rs.12,800/- for insurance. Even the complainant was having no amount for opening the account with the bank at the time of finance and Rs.5000/- paid by the opposite party to the complainant at that time. Further the amount of Rs.500/- paid for finance Paper.; In total the amount of Rs.41,800/- is due towards the complainant which has still not been paid and even the complainant issued cheque dated 3.10.2015 having no.177157 of AXIS Bank in favour of Kisan Traders but the said cheque has also been dishonored. It was further submitted that the new tractor has been received by the opposite party through Invoice dated 4.4.2015 and sold to the complainant. The Engine No. and Chassis No. of the tractor is duly mentioned in the said Invoice dated 4.4.2015. It was admitted that one complaint has been made by the complainant regarding the problem in lift and that has been duly removed. The lift of the tractor is working properly and never become out of order. The complainant is leveling false and frivolous allegations. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.
4. Upon notice, the opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its written reply through its counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and vague in nature and the complainant has filed this complaint only to wriggle out his financial liabilities It further does not disclose any cause of action against the opposite party no.2 and hence is liable to dismissed in limine; there is no privity of contract between opposite party no.2 and the complainant; the complainant has filed the present complaint with ulterior motives to injure the reputation of opposite party no.2 and to extort money without establishing any manufacturing defects. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Section 26 for filing it under frivolous and vexatious allegations. On merits, it was submitted that opposite party no.2 does not sell tractors manufactured by it to an individual customer but do so through its authorized dealers only and there is no privity of contract between opposite party no.2 and the complainant. The relationship of opposite party no.2 and its dealers are maintained on Principal to Principal basis. It was further submitted that the complainant brought the tractor for first service after running 60 hours on 1.5.2015 and made complaint of safety switch not working and lift hunting in the tractor. These complaints were removed at the time of first service. Thereafter, the complainant brought the tractor for second service after running 300 hours on 22.6.2015 and made no complaint in the tractor. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.
6. Counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Gurpreet Singh Ex.OP1/1 and of Amit Kumar Raghav Ex.OP-2/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/16 and Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP-2/3 and closed the evidence.
7. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence available on the complaint records (as produced by litigants) in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by their learned counsels while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the complainant has sought the relief of ‘replacement’ of the purchased Tractor (along with compensation etc) alleging it to be of ‘old model’ but sold as ‘new model 2015’ by the OP1 vendor. He has also alleged its hydraulic ‘Lift’ to be inherently defective as it could not be satisfactorily repaired to its optimally ‘right’ working order. However, the complainant has failed to prove his allegations during the present proceedings by producing some reliable and cogent evidence. He has somehow, totally omitted/ ignored to produce the primarily requisite ‘expert’ opinion to prove the allegations of ‘old model’ and inherent manufacturing defect in the Tractor’s Lift Assembly. On the other hand, the OP1 Vendor and the OP2 Manufacturers have duly produced the Consignment Note Ex.OP1/6 along with the Delivery & Satisfaction Note Ex.OP1/9 duly proving that the sold Tractor (with its specific Engine & Chassis nos.) as delivered on 14.04.2015 was dispatched by the Manufacturers OP2 at Mohali to its Dealers OP1 at Gurdaspur on 04.04.2015. Also, the Insurance Policy cover Ex.OP1/16 clearly indicates ‘2015’ as the Year of Manufacture. Further, the OP’s produced Job cards Ex.OP1/14 (Ex.OP2/2) and Ex.OP1/15 (Ex.OP2/3) shows/ proves that the Tractor in question on 01.05.2015 was reported with ‘Lift Hunting’ defect but as duly removed at its First Service (with 60 Hrs Run) but no such ‘recurrence’ reported on 22.06.2015 at its Second Service (with 300 Hrs Run). The OP1 vendor has also produced on record one dishonored cheque (Ex.OP1/2, 1/3 & 1/4) & statement of complainant’s account (Ex.OP1/11) evidencing the hue of ‘consumer dispute’ having been given to the one ‘financial dispute’ just to base its probable ‘cause of action’. Thus, we do not see any actionable ‘merit’ under the statute, in the present complaint.
8. In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint to be devoid of all actionable merit as statutorily envisaged under the CP Act and thus ORDER the dismissal of the same with however no orders as to its costs.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
February 08, 2016 Member.
*MK*
